Aviation technology advances, US tries to keep up

January 20, 2013
by David Koenig

In this Jan. 17, 2013 file photo, a line of 787 jets are parked at Paine Field in Everett, Wash. After two separate and serious battery problems aboard Boeing 787s, it wasn't U.S. authorities who acted first to ground the plane. It was Japanese airlines. The unfolding saga of Boeing's highest-profile plane has raised new questions about federal oversight of aircraft makers and airlines. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, file)

(AP)—The battery that caught fire in a Japan Airlines 787 in Boston last week was not overcharged, but U.S. investigators said Sunday there could still be problems with wiring or other charging components.

But NTSB investigators are continuing to look at the battery system. They plan to meet Tuesday with officials from Securaplane Technologies Inc., manufacturer of the charger for the 787s lithium ion batteries, at the company's headquarters in Arizona, said Kelly Nantel, a spokeswoman for the board.

"Potentially there could be some other charging issue," Nantel said. "We're not prepared to say there was no charging issue."

The unfolding saga of Boeing's highest-profile plane has raised new questions about federal oversight of aircraft makers and airlines. After two separate and serious battery problems, it wasn't U.S. authorities who acted first to ground the plane. It was Japanese airlines.

Some aviation experts question the ability of the Federal Aviation Administration to keep up with changes in the way planes are being made today—both the technological advances and the use of multiple suppliers from around the globe. Others question whether regulators are too cozy with aircraft manufacturers.

A week ago, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood endorsed the Dreamliner's safety even as they ordered a new review of its design and construction following the fire in a lithium-ion battery on the 787 that had landed in Boston.

But on Wednesday, after a battery malfunction on a second plane resulted in an emergency landing, they grounded Dreamliner flights in the U.S.

The Dreamliner is the first airliner whose structure is made mostly from composite materials rather than aluminum. The plane relies more than previous airliners on electrical systems rather than hydraulic or mechanical ones, and it's the first airliner to make extensive use of lithium-ion batteries to power cabin-pressurization and other key functions.

Such technological advances may force the FAA to re-examine the way it does its job.

"We've gone from aviation to aerospace products that are much more complex," said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with the Teal Group. "The FAA is equipped for aviation. Aerospace is another matter."

Former NTSB board member Kitty Higgins said the FAA must consider whether changes in its certification process would have turned up the problems in the Dreamliner battery systems.

"They need to make sure the certification process stays current with the industry and the new technology," she said.

Too much current flowing too fast into a battery can overwhelm the battery, causing it to short-circuit and overheat even if the battery's voltage remains within its design limit, said John Goglia, a former NTSB board member and aviation safety expert.

There are so many redundancies and safeguards in aviation that when an accident or mishap occurs it almost always is the result of a chain of events rather than a single failure, Goglia said.

The batteries in two incidents "had a thermal overrun because they short-circuited," he said. "The question is whether it was a manufacturing flaw in the battery or whether it was induced by battery charging."

Despite their concerns, many safety experts still believe that the current regulatory process works. The 787s were grounded before any accidents occurred.

An FAA spokeswoman declined to comment for this article, referring instead to statements made during a news conference last week. Officials said then that the review of the 787 wouldn't be limited to the Dreamliner's batteries. Huerta said that the agency would "make sure that the approved quality control procedures are in place and that all of the necessary oversight is done."

The FAA has said that its technical experts logged 200,000 hours testing and reviewing the plane's design before certifying the plane in August 2011. Boeing defended the process and the plane.

"We are confident in the regulatory process that has been applied to the 787 since its design inception," said Boeing Co. spokesman Marc Birtel. "With this airplane, the FAA conducted its most robust certification process ever."

In certifying new planes, the FAA relies heavily on information from the manufacturers. That system has worked—the U.S. commercial airline fleet is safer than ever—but it is coming under renewed scrutiny after the 787 incidents.

Experts say that FAA officials have no choice but to rely on information from aircraft manufacturers as key systems of the plane are designed and built.

"As a practical matter, they can't do the testing," said longtime aviation consultant Daniel Kasper of Compass Lexecon. "They don't have the expertise in aircraft design, and they don't have the budget—it would be too costly. They would have to be involved in every step."

Thomas Anthony, director of the aviation-safety program at the University of Southern California, said many new planes have flaws that are only discovered once they go into service, and that the regulatory process worked the way it was supposed to with the Dreamliner.

"The FAA used to be accused of 'blood priority'"—acting only after a disaster, Anthony said. "In this case, it's not true. The regulators are taking their job seriously. There were no accidents, there were no injuries, there were no fatalities."

That has not always been the case. In 1979, authorities grounded the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 for five weeks after an engine tore loose from the wing of an American Airlines plane, causing a crash that killed 273 in Chicago. And there were other incidents that occurred after the DC-10 was introduced in 1971, including cargo-door problems that forced one emergency landing and caused a Turkish Airlines crash that killed 346 in 1974.

Boeing, based in Chicago, is racing to find a fix to the Dreamliner's battery systems and get the planes back in the air. It is still producing 787s but has stopped delivering them to customers.

Bloomberg News reported that Boeing has tried to persuade FAA to end the groundings by proposing a variety of inspections and having pilots monitor electronic signals from the batteries to prevent fires. The FAA has been reluctant to approve those steps without a clear idea of what caused the defects and how they can be prevented.

(AP)—The U.S. government stepped in Friday to assure the public that Boeing's new 787 "Dreamliner" is safe to fly, even as it launched a comprehensive review to find out what caused a fire, a fuel leak and other worrisome ...

Lithium batteries that can leak corrosive fluid and start fires have emerged as the chief safety concern involving Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, a problem that apparently is far more serious than government or company officials ...

It's likely that burning lithium ion batteries on two Boeing 787 Dreamliners were caused by overcharging, aviation safety and battery experts said Friday, pointing to developments in the investigation of the Boeing incidents ...

Recommended for you

It sounds like a science-fiction nightmare. But "killer robots" have the likes of British scientist Stephen Hawking and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak fretting, and warning they could fuel ethnic cleansing and an arms race.

A startup team calls their work a product. They also call it a social movement. Many people in the over-7,000 islands in the Philippines lack access to electricity .The startup would like to make a difference. Their main ...

Are some people fed up with remembering and using passwords and PINs to make it though the day? Those who have had enough would prefer to do without them. For mobile tasks that involve banking, though, it is obvious that ...

2 comments

Overcharge, shorted of punctured. That's the only reasons those batteries catch on fire. I doubt they were punctured so that leaves overcharging or shorted. Personally I would have to go with overcharged. It only takes one battery to get out of balance with the others for a whole battery pack to end up going up in smoke and lithium batteries are very very picky about overcharging.

Send a couple complete battery/charging systems over to the nearest Underwriters Laboratory for independent testing. The FAA doesn't need to waste millions of dollars figuring out how to do the tests itself.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.